Virendra Saran - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel who agree that this petition itself may be finally disposed of.
(2.) IT appears that on 14-7-1992 at about 1.10 P.M. Nagendra Singh, Station Officer of P. S. Sheopur, District Varanasi intercepted and checked a DCM (Toyota") truck bearing registration No MP 09-D-2078 and recovered large number of pouches containing country liquor. A sum of Rs. 9000/- and a ring was also recovered from the person of the petitioner. The petitioner made an application to the learned VIII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Varanasi for the return of the cash Rs. 9000/- and the ring. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 9-9-1992 directed that the ring may be returned to the petitioner but the request of the petitioner for the return of Rs. 9000/- was rejected. The petitioner riled criminal revision No. 323 of 1992 in the court of the Sessions Judge, Varanast challenging the order dated 9-9-1992. The learned Sessions Judge, Varanasi by his order dated 5-11 1992 dismissed the revision The petitioner has now come up before this court in the present writ petition. It, is not disputed that the sum of Rs. 9000/- was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The prayer for return of Rs 9000/- was, however, rejected by the learned Magistrate on the ground that the amount was case property. The petitioner had pleaded that the sum of Rs. 9000/- was received by him as sale proceeds of his Ambassador car while the contention of the State was that the petitioner had received the amount as sale price of the liquor sold earlier by him. The learned Sessions Judge was of the opinion that the source of the money found on the person of the petitioner could not be determined at present stage. The learned Standing Counsel drew my attention to Section 72 (1) (b) and (c) of the U. P. Excise Act and argued that if Rs. 9000/- was received by the petitioner as sale proceeds of any liquor the same was liable to be confiscated. The relevant provisions of the Section 72 of the Excise Act are :- "72 (1) :-Whenever an offence punishable under this Act has been committed- (a) .......... (b) every still, utensil. Implement or apparatus and all materials by means of which such offence has been committed : (a) every (intoxicant) lawfully imported, transported, manufactured held in possession or sold along with or in addition to any (intoxicant; liable to confiscation under clause (a) (d).......... (e)........ shall be liable to confiscation."
(3.) THE learned Standing Counsel has laid empriasis on the following words occurring in Section 72 (1) (b) of the Act ;- "By means of which such offence has been committed." The provisions of Section 72 of the Act being penal in nature are to be construed strictly. It would not be legitimate to enlarge the scope of Section 72 or to read is more words than what have been written with pen and ink by the legislature. Things which are liable to be confiscated clearly enumerated in Section 72 of the Act which cannot be interpreted in a way so as to bring within its ambit sale proceeds of any liquor or other intoxicant sold by the accused on earlier point of time.;